> So, in effect, large, publicly traded corporations would then own the land, as you describe it? You think that's a good idea?
I don't mean it "in effect" I mean it explicitly. The advantages are large and the risks addressable:
- It spreads ownership around: the shareholders all own the housing stock the corporation owns. Thus they are buffered from the risks of a local market downturn.
- It makes moving easier (if you live in a place that suffers, say, a huge factory closure, you can't sell your house since everybody else wants to do so as well).
- It encourages a variety of housing types (single family to semi detached to large apartment blocks) and again buffers against, let's call it, "style risk").
And frankly when you have a large corp you can regulate some of the most egregious problems like fair housing rules, environmental and code issues, etc. Such companies are likely to be stable equities good for retirement funds etc similar to publicly traded utilities and less like airlines much less high tech businesses.
Except that if you're in an increasing market it can push the sale price up.
A fetish for home ownership also screws up labor force mobility and reduces the granularity of variations in cost of living (some of which is discussed here). We'd be better off if large, publicly traded corporations owned most of the housing stock and provided it on long term lease (which is almost the situation today, but in the most complicated fashion possible). Then nobody would be "tied to the land".